RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-poverty-crisis-dems-will-never-let-go-to-waste/

Whether hard or soft, the Left operates through a few core tactics. One is “by any means necessary.” Double standards, “big lies,” violence, censorship––all are justified by the alleged nobility of their goals like “equity” and “social justice.” The other is the precept “You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste,” as Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel put it, since a crisis is “an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

And if there isn’t a “serious crisis”? Manufacture one by employing the tactics of “any means necessary.” If statistical data tell us that unarmed black men are not disproportionately and wantonly being gunned down by the police, just keep yelling the “big lie” that they are, while violently rioting, assaulting, and looting and burning businesses for the television and iPhone cameras. Shake down corporate hegemons for danegeld, intimidate mayors and governors into defunding police departments, demonize cops into retirement, and soon you can do things you “could not do before,” like hiring prosecutors who release violent criminals back on the streets to keep on killing and maiming.

Not wasting manufactured “crises” has been the progressives’ most successful methods for expanding and concentrating the power of the federal Leviathan.

One of the oldest “crises” the progressive technocrats have exploited for over half a century is “poverty,” especially “child poverty.” Last year, for example, Democrat Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer promised that expanding the tax credit for children would “cut child poverty in half,” and Biden repeated that promise.

In fact, as Phil Gramm and John Early pointed out recently, the poverty rate barely budged from 2020’, and remained higher than 2019’s, “even though government spent an extra $2.6 trillion on transfer payments in 2020-21.” And don’t forget, this largesse is added to the $23 trillion tab run up since Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty” legislation of 1964. Worse, all that money has lowered official poverty rates by only a few points at best from 1964’s rate. So why do we continue this dysfunctional approach?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/huzzah-a-student-loan-plaintiff-frank-garrison-lawsuit-biden-pacific-legal-foundation-11664311394?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

The Biden Administration has to know it lacks the authority to unilaterally cancel a half-trillion dollars in student debt, but it may have calculated that no one could demonstrate the injury needed to bring a legal challenge. Well, maybe someone can.

An Indiana borrower on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit to block the President’s student loan write-off. He makes a strong case that he is harmed by the loan cancellation and that it’s illegal. Federal courts only hear cases and controversies. As a threshold matter, plaintiffs must show that they have suffered a concrete and particular injury.

Individual taxpayers aren’t directly harmed by the write-off, even if they will ultimately bear the cost. The cancellation is unfair to Americans who repaid their loans or didn’t go to college, but they haven’t suffered a concrete injury. Frank Garrison argues he will be harmed owing to quirks in federal loan repayment plans and Indiana tax law.

Mr. Garrison is enrolled in the federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which limits his monthly payments to a share of his income and discharges the remaining debt after 10 years of payments. The President’s loan forgiveness will immediately cancel $20,000 in debt. But this won’t reduce his monthly payments since they are already capped.

However, it will require him to pay more than $1,000 in state tax on the canceled debt this year. Indiana doesn’t tax Public Service Loan Forgiveness, so he wouldn’t face a state tax liability several years from now. Thus he won’t receive an “additional benefit from the cancellation—just a one-time additional penalty,” according to his suit.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-thinks-stock-market-doesnt-matter-heres-what-he-doesnt-get

Stock markets are crashing, but Joe Biden doesn’t care.

The cheery president is oblivious, even though U.S. investors have lost $7.6 trillion since he took office and we are now officially in a bear market.

Politico reports that Biden wants to hit the road, eager to tout his economic achievements and confident that the “nation’s outlook is brightening.”

This, as economists from Bank of America, among many others, are predicting a recession in 2023 and rising unemployment thanks to the Federal Reserve’s efforts to combat inflation. And, as prominent companies like FedEx and GE confirm such gloomy forecasts by warning more trouble lies ahead.

But then this is the same clueless president who hosted an “Inflation Reduction Party” featuring James Taylor crooning about drug addiction (???) the same day a bad inflation read caused the Dow to plunge 1,200 points – one of the worst drops this year.

Asked recently about the slide in share prices, Biden said, “The stock market doesn’t necessarily reflect the state of the economy, as you well know. And the economy is still strong.” Actually, the economy shrank during the past two quarters, the housing market is in freefall and an inverted yield curve is flashing red.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/david-malpasss-lesson-for-gop-candidates-world-bank-al-gore-climate-change-gotcha-question-republicans-scientist-11664214207?mod=opinion_lead_pos10

World Bank President David Malpass committed a horrible environmental crime last Tuesday. When asked about his views on climate change, he said, “I’m not a scientist.”

The saga began earlier when Al Gore called Mr. Malpass a “climate denier” and urged President Biden to fire him. It isn’t clear why Mr. Gore was so incensed by Mr. Malpass. Whatever his personal beliefs, the World Bank under Mr. Malpass’s leadership has given a record $31.7 billion in fiscal 2022 to “climate-related” initiatives.

When a reporter prodded Mr. Malpass about the comment hours later, he said it was “very odd” and declined to discuss his climate views with his words about not being a scientist.

This seeming nonevent developed into front-page news at the New York Times. Calls for Mr. Malpass’s resignation began, including from the White House, despite Mr. Malpass subsequently clarifying that he does believe greenhouse gases cause warming. One wonders where this outrage was when Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson declined to define the word “woman” in her confirmation hearings, pleading, “I’m not a biologist.”

Mr. Malpass has refused to resign, and why should he? He spoke the truth. He isn’t a scientist. He’s an economist, hence his appointment to the World Bank by President Trump. What he said about greenhouse gases is also true, and probably the one thing all sides can agree on in the climate debate. It’s also the end of what science clearly says about global warming. Anything else you hear is guesswork, if not fear-mongering.

But the hysterical reaction to Mr. Malpass’s statement is also an important lesson for Republican candidates. They’re likely to get this sort of “gotcha” question on climate and “I am not a scientist” and similar disavowals of expertise, knowledge and opinion aren’t good answers, true as they may be. They instantly make one sound defensive and don’t defuse the situation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-permitting-bills-poison-pill-joe-manchin-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-senate-11664226775?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

The Senate may vote as early as Tuesday on Joe Manchin’s permitting reform bill, and the West Virginian says Republicans should accept incremental progress rather than nothing. But the main problem isn’t that his changes are too modest, though they are. Some of them would do tangible harm to U.S. energy security and constitutional federalism.

Though it’s received little attention, one section would rewrite how transmission lines are permitted, and not for the better. The 1935 Federal Power Act preserved state authority over transmission-line permits while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) decides how to allocate costs.

A transmission line that crosses a state affects its utility planning. Yet states may disagree over whose citizens should pay for it. FERC today apportions the costs by economic and reliability benefits. If a line reduces electricity prices in Michigan, its citizens shoulder some of the cost. The Manchin bill would disrupt this delicate federal-state balance.

It gives FERC the power to permit an interstate transmission line if the Energy Secretary says it promotes “national energy policy” or the ability of “intermittent energy to connect to the electric grid.” FERC could override states and approve a line merely because it reduces CO2 emissions or encourages renewable power.